Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 20:22:02 -0700 From: Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org> To: swear@blarg.net (Gary W. Swearingen) Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: GPL nonsense: time to stop Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.2.20011219200831.01ea1a60@localhost> In-Reply-To: <pqr8pqy73e.8pq@localhost.localdomain> References: <4.3.2.7.2.20011219085146.00decca0@localhost> <20011218121011.E21649@monorchid.lemis.com> <4hzo4hyv3c.o4h@localhost.localdomain> <4.3.2.7.2.20011217221801.02841bc0@localhost> <4.3.2.7.2.20011218102351.02841f00@localhost> <4.3.2.7.2.20011218124204.02812700@localhost> <4.3.2.7.2.20011218180158.00d6fc50@localhost> <4.3.2.7.2.20011219085146.00decca0@localhost>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 07:10 PM 12/19/2001, Gary W. Swearingen wrote: >Given some of the strange ideas I've seen from Moglen, I don't give his >legal opinions complete credence, but given his position with the FSF, >it is gives us a pretty good idea of what his and RMS's opinions would >probably be on a couple of the issues we've discussed. Note that he >spoke for himself, not the FSF. True. His opinions will likely determine whether the FSF will pursue a lawsuit, though, so they are important even if he is wrong. My personal opinion is that the GPL is unenforceable due to "meta-contract" issues and also because it constitutes what is sometimes called "copyright abuse" -- the attempted use of a claim of copyright to accomplish ends beyond copyright's Constitutional scope. But these arguments would of course have to be made in a test case. >I found two things particularly interesting: The company (after the >arm-twisting) planned to distrubute a package that consisted of GPL'd >code and non-GPL'd code and some of the latter installed the rest. >Moglen found that no "technical interpenetration" justifies regarding >them as a single, combined work and that such packages are "mere >aggregations" permitted by the GPL. The FSF's CURRENT stance (it could change tomorrow) is that linking -- static or dynamic -- brings the entire work under the GPL, whereas IPC does not. (Never mind that they're just different forms of communication between two chunks of code.) BeOS, which uses GPLed drivers, exploits this loophole by making its device drivers autonomous processes that communicate with the rest of the OS via fast IPC. It then takes GPLed drivers for Linux and converts them to BeOS drivers by putting a process skeleton around them. Voila! Instant access to a vast library of device drivers. Of course, RMS could, tomorrow, decide that those hoarding thieves at Be, Inc. deserve to be punished and revise either the GPL or his legal beagles' stance. Does the FSF's current stance make sense? Is it enforceable? Who knows! The important thing is that loading a kernel module would NOT satisfy the FSF's criteria for "separateness" and would thus compel the FreeBSD Project to license the kernel under the GPL. --Brett Glass To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4.3.2.7.2.20011219200831.01ea1a60>